Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 Human Resources Subgroup Meeting #2 - 23 August 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/DgKsAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. With kind regards, Brenda Brewer MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Notes 1. Administrivia 2. Discussion on: the Summary on what was agreed and discussed on human rights during WS1 [0] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rwpw9aSAqboRO2_rNkjMVJPOmYwmdr5B1_M_aNMo... * Tatiana and Greg walk through of the first Google document - Summary of WS1 (WP4) discussion on Human Rights 1st draft * Greg Shatan: ICANN will enforce their contracts -- but I don't believe there are requirements relating to human rights (beyond "applicable law' provisions). * Nigel: Disagree. Because human rights conventions are not applicable to ICANN as it's not a state actor * jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): as for the meaning and effect of article 4 about international law and HR: perhaps an analysis of IRP decisions (and maybe other instances as well) could be warranted, in order to have a clear picture as to what extent HR (based on current article 4 of the Articles of Incorporation) have already been applied? * Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Ruggie principles state that business (ie. ICANN) should "not contribute to" human rights abuses. (See page 21.) Of course for some, this may conflict with what they see as their free speech rights. For example, the Hague Criminal Court had testimony yesterday from the perpetrator of crimes of destruction of cultural property in Mali. This destruction resulted from ISIL occupation and its statement against the culture in Mali that it viewed as heretical. These videos are accessible on certain Internet sites. If ICANN permits sites to be used to show destruction of cultural property - or in a more extreme case, to permit authorized Internet urls to be used to display beheadings, is ICANN contributing to human rights violations and failing to respect Human Rights? * Niels ten Oever 2: Hi Anne - I think representation on an act and an act is a very different thing. * Nigel: Moreover, respect for human rihghts involve a positive oblgation to carry out the balancing act between several rights that are engaged. * Nigel: e.g. free expression versus right to property * David McAuley: In WS1 we agreed to punt on enforcement. * Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Niels -I am not sure what you mean by "representation on an act". But I agree that respecting Human Rights necessarily involves a balancing act. It may also be case-by-case. * Tatiana Tropina: I think what we are discussing now is actually the FoI issues - and good that we have transcripts. I also would like to offer - anyone - please - go to the concerns document, it still is in the drafting process (in its very inception) and do list your concerns . * Niels ten Oever 2: @Anne - Destruction of buildings is not by far the same as showing videos of destruction. On this topic, also see the Manilla Principles. * Farzaneh Badii: enforcement question. * Tatiana Tropina: Enforcement in this document is about external enforcement. Internal enforcement is a valid point for future discussion. * Paul McGrady: Problem of defining Respect and it being punted to WS2. did this get into constituencies etc. * Tatiana Tropina: It was more of a policy discussion and drawing border between Respect and Protection. * David McAuley: I recall the discussions around respect being about ICANN the organization rather than the commmunity. * Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Is providing in the Registry Agreement that ICANN can direct the Registry to takedown any website that is clearly demonstrated or purposed toward Human Rights violations (e.g. sex trafficing of minors website) a matter of "external enforcment" or a matter of action taken to avoid contributing to Human Rights abuses? If ICANN supports policies that prevent law enforcement from getting to the perpetrators, then those policies would be contributing to Human Rights abuses. Or does ICANN say, "not my problem - out of scope". Good luck finding these people. We think it's fine if their location and contact information is completely private. * Kavouss Arasteh: meeting badly organized. * David McAuley: We never really delved into respect neiter did we go beyond ICANN the organization. * Greg Shatan: There was some discussion of Respect in WS1. * Niels Ten Oever: One more week to work on the document. (Several green Ticks and no comments).. Everyone is invited to contribute tot he document. 3. Discussion on: Concerns on possible impacts of Human Rights bylaw and FoI [1] * Niels Ten Oever: Paul Twomey is not on this call and will ask him and TT to work on this document over the coming week. I would also invite everyone to contribute to this if they have input. * Kavouss Arasteh: general disagreement with process and activities. NTO: explanation of process. * Ron da Silva: Board Concerns? These were well captured in the document. Unaware of any additional concerns vs those from WS1. * Jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): CHAT - apart from concerns that the HR commitment would go "too far", we should also be careful in not weakening the current level of commitment according especially to article IV of the AoI * Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC) CHAT: This was a concern I expressed earlier - being bound to Article 4 without a Framework of Interpretation. * jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland): I would see that analysis (of the current level of commitment under current AoI and Bylaws) either as a staff supported endeavour or as a collective effort... not sure whether Lee could cope with it - I'm a bit reluctant to speak on his behalf :-S * Tijani Ben Jemaa: we have to go forward with our narrow mission of creating an FOI - we should not add to our scope. * Andrew Mack: here here Tijani. less is more -- it will be challenge enough as a limited mandate * David McAuley: Good reminder, thanks Tijani * Tatiana Tropina: We agreed during the WS1 that we can not say whether Art 4 of AoI creates the obligation because HR instruments are mostly for the states * Niels Ten Oever: good point TBJ. I will draft a frame of this document to get us started next week. * Kavouss Arasteh: Discussion of what is the FOI? * Niels Ten Oever: Annex 6 of the CCWG report describes this quite well and provides some examples. 4. Discussion on working tools of the Design Team (Wiki, mailinglist, Github, Google Docs, Etherpads, etc) * Niels Ten Oever: Problems with Googledocs - the only tools for collaborative working on text is Etherpad and Googledocs. Googledocs has more functionality so we will keep using it for now. If you have further comments on this please provide them on the list. * Tijani Ben Jemaa: Let us use what ICANN provides so everyone can contribute. The Wiki works well. * Niels Ten Oever: lets take this to the list. 5. AOB * Niels Ten Oever: adjourned.
